We do not support tiny home sites at all. Our research shows time and again, they do not work.
IDEA: if tiny home sites are mandatory, despite the research and results -put them in the outskirts! away from any home, school, business, public in general
ONE PLACE, away from everyone, where you can bring portable toilets; food donations; for garbage pick up; for social services outreach and programs; one centralized place people can be relocated from the streets and sidewalks, underpasses, etc.
and those who are willing, able and capable to work, -one place transportation can pick up/drop off...
* TO my personal understanding, San Jose (city) is being mandated/pressured at the state level to continue to build these failing tiny home sites despite the research/results.
* THE biggest unanswered questions remain: -once in a tiny home, where next?!? -where are they being transitioned to? And, if tiny home resident(s) are safe, healthy, and have only fallen on financial hard times -we should be able to skip the tiny home all together, and get them write into wherever they'd end up at, anyway -write? AND, the harder reality and therefore more critical question that remains unanswered and unaddressed:
Let's say San Jose successfully pushes the tiny home agenda.. spends whatever is necessary, and takes up the land space required to remove 6000 currently unsheltered people off the streets and into tiny homes.. (skipping here the destruction of otherwise healthy neighborhoods/businesses this causes)
These tiny homes attract more unsheltered, homeless people into our city, on our streets, etc.
suddenly you have 1000 more to deal with... What is the plan then?
.png)
